tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 10, 2015 9:00pm-11:01pm EDT
pursuant to house resolution 412, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. hose opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: signed at the vienna on july 14, 2015, relating to the nuclear program of iran. the speaker pro tempore: the of tion is on the passage the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. royce on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed.
the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert, is recognized as the designee of the majority leader for half of the time remaining before 10:00 p.m., approximately 0 minutes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. schweikert: thank you, -- 30 minutes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. schweikert: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to yield as much time as he may consume to my good friend from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is ecognized. mr. carter: i thank my friend from arizona for recognizing me. we were having a really great conversation here and i hope that everyone who has the
responsibility of casting a vote on this so-called deal that the president's brought us has been listening very closely. mr. speaker, the president wants congress to approve what i would call an absurd deal that eases the path of an avout enemy of the united states of america and our allies, eases it to unleash a nightmare on the world. so i want us to take a look, and i ask the supporters of this deal to take a look at what iran has done to merit our trust. you know, we first saw these guys way back in the carter administration when they stormed our american embassy and took our people hostage and held those people for -- i believe it was 42 days, abused them in every way they could think of. and quite honestly, finally
released them after pressure was placed on them and since that time, i cannot think of a single instance where dealing with iran has been a positive thing. in fact, let's look at the public face they put on. they still chant death to america. i saw them chant death to america last night on television. death to israel, one of our allies. they still support terror groups, we just heard from the hairman of the committee, of all the terror groups they will be able to support after this deal is done. they're still governed by fanatics hell-bent on spreading their perverted view of their faith. now, is this a nation we should choose to strike a deal with? to make a nuclear deal?
to those people who say they support this, i'd like you to make sure you have confidence in the people we're making a deal with. you know, i don't know what the rest of the world calls a deal. but generally when you make a deal, both sides kind of have some kind of benefit. i can see all kinds of things that we're giving to these folks, including a big bucket full of money, billions of dollars to iran. we're basically giving them everything that they desired as far as going forward. our inspections are questionable. and then -- but my question is, what is the united states of america getting out of this deal? getting a promise from a regime 50-year a long, almost history of lying whenever its served their purpose. but we're talking their word that they're going to do --
taking their word that they're going to do certain things. we get nothing else from this bill than their word. but think about the cost, if this is not the right deal. those of you that are really thinking about the conscience of america, think about the cost. to make a mistake on this vote is quite honestly catastrophic. and the horror that would come to pass if they actually were to detonate a nuclear device that for some reason our failure to do the right thing caused them to get on the fast track to get their hands on, the blood will be on the hands of those who didn't take the time to decide, are these trustworthy people for us to be dealing with? i would argue they have no track record on which to argue that they are trustworthy.
tomorrow's vote is probably as important a vote as anyone in this chamber will ever take, because it is a vote that could unleash nuclear war in the middle east. as a result of our failure to cut a real deal. so i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to think about this, stand with america, stand with israel, stand with those who oppose state sponsor of terrorism and oppose president obama's irresponsible and dangerous iran agreement. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has yielded back. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. schweikert: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you, judge carter. mr. speaker, this is something i've actually never done but have you ever had one of those moments in your life where you want to come to the microphone and share it with whoever's
willing to listen? this has been a tough few days here. many of us, as we come to these microphones, have these heavy hearts because we're fearful that what's going on around us may be one of those momentous moments where we remember this for the rest of our lives, where it's one of those votes, one of those debates where you affect the world. and there's another side to this, on a personal basis, where you ral realize how incredit blble -- where you realize how incredibly honored, lucky, blessed you are to get o be behind this microphone. last week a woman from my community passed away and we all in our lives have those handful of people that actually make a difference and affect
our lives. well, she's partially responsible for me being behind this microphone. a woman named eleanor benson from fountain hills died last week. i believe at a age 95. and she changed my life. -- at age 95. and she changed my life. i was a 21, maybe 22-year-old kid, i was selling real estate in our little town as a way to finance my way to go through arizona state university at night. and she, in remember retirement at that age, decided to take on another job at our little office. and she sat me down and she knew i had an interest in conservative politics. and i still to this day remember her looking at me and saying, david, i like you, you're going to be the next president of the local republican club. and i tried to explain to her, there was no way i would have
time for such a thing and she looked at me and said, don't worry, i'll help. this is a woman that moved to our little community on the side of scottsdale, i believe n the late 1970's. and had such an impact. for years i used to believe maybe 1/3 of the town, half the town had become involved in politics, mostly republican politics, because of her passion, her energy, you could not stop her. she got me to be the president of the local club and stood by me when i did dumb things and applauded me when i did good things and scolded me when i didn't say the right things and walked me through how to be more sensitive instead of being so caffeinated, which is a family problem.
d i realize, in the chaos of doing this job, i failed to tell her how much i loved her and how much she affected my life. because i don't believe i would be here today if it wasn't for eleanor benson. who not only changed my life but actually, i believe, with her work at the fountain hills chamber of commerce, her work for so many causes, her work for her church, actually made my community a much, much better place. we're all better in our part of arizona because of her life. it's a life well lived. it was a long life. she was beautiful to the day she passed -- until the day she passed. i wish i had let her know how much we cared. so, eleanor, if you're out
there, thank you. thank you for changing my life, thank you for making my community a better one. nd with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has yielded back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, is recognized until 10:00 p.m. as the designee of the minority leader. mr. rush: i want to thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, scripture says by you shall know the tree the fruit it bears. . good tree bears good fruit
strong trees bring forth strong fruit. oving trees bear loving fruit. mr. speaker, what then is to be aid about a tree whose fruit s a respected and courageous freedom fighter? mr. speaker, i am speaking of a , eat woman of distinction helen byrnes jackson, the mother of the renounced -- renowned reverend jesse lewis ackson sr., who is the founder
f the rainbow push coalition based in the first congressional district of llinois. epitome er, he was the of a good fruit-bearing tree. she made her transition from september 7,ity on illness.er a lengthy she was surrounded by her loving family and her friends. a native of greenville, south arolina, ms. burns-jackson
instilled in her children, a sense of dignity, self-respect and loving justice in the face the inhumane treatment of african-americans in the segregated south. orn in 1925, she endured the hardships of poverty, the hardship of racism, to raise two sons, two sons of great accomplishment, great distinction and american hero and civil rights legend, the verend jesse louis jackson fen no,nd the m omptown ma'amion charles jackson, a gifted singer of world renowned.
mrs. burns-jackson herself was a singer and dancer and she passed college torship to a raise her two sons. a life, mr. speaker, was great american story of overcoming the odds with an unbreakable will and a deep, abiding faith. she planted the seeds of courage, the seeds of perseverance and the seeds of ope in reverend jackson and in his brother, charles. reverend jackson will go on to
not only free american hostages, but became the freedom fighter for those who are oppressed, ose who are poor, all around this globe. it is on this very day, september 10, 2015, that i rise before the house of republics -- representatives, to pay tribute to this beautiful and comploord moving mother. dresser son was a hair by profession. she was known as a towering pillar of her community. her home became the central station of the civil rights movement. mr. speaker, she also provided
me with great encouragement when she traveled to chicago to visit her son and his family. as a young activist, i certainly was inspired by her words of wisdom, as a young activist, she inspired me to commit myself to serving others. r. speaker, it has been said that trees on the earth's endless efforts to nurture life. mrs. burns-jackson was a beautiful, tall tree among all of us who has returned to the heavenly glory of her god, our god almighty.
her spirit lives not only in her children, her grandchildren and in her great-grandchildren, but her spirit also lives in the righteous fruits that may be ound in those of us who is touched by the endless love, the great kindness, the great grace and the tremendous wisdom of this helen burns-jackson. mr. speaker, on behalf of the citizens of the first congressional district and on behalf of my loving wife carolyn we pay tribute to this emarkable and special woman,
this in-- inspiration to all of us, ms. helen burns-jackson. e was indeed a mother of the movement. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has yielded back. under the speaker's announced licy of january 6, 2015, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: wonderful tribute of a man who knows courage. he has it, shown it and knows to stand up for what he believes in. a lot of great examples. served in this body. and that's what we need right
now. we face as important an issue as we've had certainly since i have been here. ossibly decades. al deal with the devil is what it comes down to. what ronald reagan would say, is evil. , the es the evil empire soviet union, pale in comparison that iran's leaders have perpetrated. and this administration has done deal with them. chairman ed royce has eloquently pointed out that iran has
violated every international agreement they've entered since 1979, so wouldn't it fill the definition of insanity if nother deal is entered by what used to be the lone superpower with the one and only country in existence in the world that has broken every agreement its entered since 1979? if someone were standing back as a historian and looking at and s going on right now we're totally objective, he or she would probably say, well, it looks like the fools are running the united states, are going to get what they deserve. they made a deal with pure evil.
these evil leaders have lied and broken every agreement they have ever entered and these fools running the united states are going to get what they deserve and people are going to die in greater numbers than ever before. and what grieves me more than anything is what seems to be the idea of some in the house and senate that since iran is going to get nuclear weapons, sure they are going to cheat and get them sooner rather than later. this deal isn't going to allow anybody to stop them. so what's important here is to provide political coverage to republicans and we can do that by acting we are fighting real hard in the house and senate and when iran gets nukes and kills millions of people, say see, we
did what we could, but the trouble is that's not good enough, because lives in this country in the nation of israel are all at stake here. we have been told that gee, the 15 nations heading up the u.n. security council, they have agreed, so it should be binding against the united states. that argument was attempted to be made by the secretary of state. and the president himself, we have to go along because the u.n. has already voted. yeah, that would be true if there were not something called the united states constitution under which our first president took office in 1789 and since this has been in effect, our u.s. constitution, article 2, section 2, second paragraph has
been in effect. he, talking about the president, shall have power by and with with the advice and consent with the senate to make treaties provided 2/3 of the senators present concur. very clear. and we also know it's very clear that you cannot have a treaty like the nonproliferation treaty, the international agreement that was lauded by so many over such a long period of time, you cannot amend an international treaty like that unless it's with another treaty. you cannot amend that with an executive agreement. you cannot amend that with an agreement that's nonbinding. therefore, it's pretty clear, and exceedingly clear that what the president and secretary kerry and weppedy sherman that
did such a good job helping with gotnorth korea deal so they nuclear weapons, they say it's not a treaty but absolutely it is not a treaty. so if we are going to uphold our oath of office we have to acknowledge this is a treaty and implore the senate to renounce that even though the president has not submitted this treaty to them for ratification under article two, since it is a treaty, they have the power to bring it up and yes there is a convenient senate rule called cloture that harry reid suspended numerous times in the matter of some confirmations so they could get judges on the bench that would uphold whatever
interpretation of the constitution this administration cared to bring before them. there is a time when the republicans in the senate must say you know what? is is too important to let a gag will of minority senators from the minority party keep us from voting on the most important bill of our time. we're not going to let a rule that we make that we put in place that we can suspend, keep us from having a vote on the most important bill of our time. the treaty with iran. so the senate can suspend as
arry reid did, suspend the cloture rule with a vote of 51 senators and once they have the 51, suspend cloture in this iranian treaty. then bring the treaty to the floor for a ratification vote. it will not get 2/3. and once for all time, it will be clear to everyone except perhaps the president and secretary kerry, it will be very clear, as it is to constitutional law professors i have talked to, it will be very clear that we are not bound by the iranian treaty with the only country in the world that has broken every international agreement they have had since 979. the resolution that i have filed
numerous great co-sponsors, it points out that the iran nuclear agreement review act of 2015, that's the corker-cordin bill does not apply to the joint comprehensive plan of action, iran treaty, submitted to , 2015. or july it is a treaty. pursuant toll article 2, the united states constitution, the senate must give advice and consent to ratification if the joint comprehensive plan of action is to be binding upon the united states. also states, because it's a fact, on march 11, 2015, secretary of state john kerry in describing the administration's nuclear negotiations with iran, clearly stated that it was, quote, not
negotiating a legally binding plan, unquote, with iran and therefore it does not have to be submitted to congress. if it were not legally binding, then, no, secretary kerry and the president do not have to submit it to congress. but the president and the secretary of state have already given this facade, this charade away. because they've already said, well, gee, if congress doesn't go along with it, we will have been -- we will be in breach of the agreement because the u.n.'s already voted on it. ah-a. you said -- ah-ha. you said it wasn't legally binding, what you were negotiating, and now you're telling us that's not true. i mean, it conjures up memories of other statements like, if you like your insurance, you can keep it, if you like your doctor, you can keep it. it conjures up sermons by this administration and this
president, how we had to take out gaddafi out of libya for stability of the area. it would make the place so much better in north africa, and we saw what happened. .addafi without president obama bombing on behalf of the rebels that were infused with al qaeda, that would end up ultimately embassy. our this president, this state partment has created massive instability across north africa. it has put millions and tens of . llions of people in fear
where do you think this crazy migration started from? it started from the policies of this president in declaring that something that they love calling the arab spring, but ended up becoming a cold, harsh killer of a winter, was going to be helped along by the united states. some in north africa reminded me of our president's statement that mubarak had to go. the president declared he has to go. he interfered with what was going on in egypt. he interfered with an ally. not a great guy at all. but he created massive instability that allowed the muslim brother morsi to take over and, yes, he was elected, yes, confirmed this past week, there were plenty of fraudulent votes, he alleged to have had 12 million or so votes, but
after a year as president, of usurping the power under the constitution, totally disregarding the constitution, taking powers that weren't his, over to become dictator, 30 million egyptians rose up, went to the street, these were moderate muslims, these were secularists, christians, jews, that came to the streets and said, with one accord, one heart, one voice, we don't want radical islamists running egypt. same thing that our muslim friends in afghanistan, in the northern alliance said. we don't want radical islamists running afghanistan. but the egyptian people did it on their own. t may have been the greatest peaceful -- was the greatest peaceful uprising nist i had --
in the history of man. never been that many people peacefully demonstrate. what was not peaceful was the muslim brotherhood, because they want the world caliphate. they thought they were on the way with the help of president obama. they were taking libya. they felt like they were taking algeria, tunishia an come on around north africa in the middle east, they were on their way to that world caliphate they were promising they would have. the same world caliphate that the former advisor to the secretary of homeland security here in the united states tweeted out, after another american had his head cut off, that the international caliphate was inevitable, americans just needed to get used to the idea. the man that i'd been warning was a muslim brother and was a top advisor in this administration and needed to be
out. finally after he made it clear to even the most dense in this administration that he was in favor of an international caliphate, finally they had to let him finish his term and letting go by retiring. well, the president's still getting that kind of advice. and the truth is that it is a disaster. it has done so much damage to this country. so those who say this is a great deal are the same people that said we had to remove gaddafi, created massive instability, created a situation where you have so many deaths, as people try to flee from north africa. where do you think they're coming from? what do you think laid the groundwork for this? it was this president's intervention in libya. this president's meddling in egypt.
we heard the president himself say on national television, international television, because you know isis heard it, that isis is junior varsity, they're j.v. i played on the j.v. and i played on the varsity and there's a vast difference. isis knew there was a difference. this president did not. he said, if we could just arm the vetted moderate syrian rebels, that everything would be fine in syria. we've seen he's created more chaos. he's created tens of thousands f more refugees because of his failed policies borne out of massive ignorance or somebody that's advising him is not ignorant, they know what they're doing. but it is setting the middle east and north africa figuratively speaking on fire and in many cases literally
speaking. and we heard over and over of instances where the president's vetted moderate syrian rebels that we spent millions and millions and millions of dollars training and arming, they kept having all that incredibly upgraded equipment taken over by isis. and i've been over there, met with the kurdish commanders. they're begging for up-arm aered equipment so they can at least have -- up-armored equipment so they can at least have some way to stay on the battlefield with isis that this president has armed through the so keal caller:ed vetted -- through the so-called vetted syrian moderate rebels. well, we heard tonight that madeline albright things this is a good deal. well, wow, i feel so much better, that secretarial
bright, that said, along with wendy sherman that helped negotiate the deal with iran, that, gee, the key to keeping north korea from having nuclear weapons is to give them nuclear power plant, give them the nuclear material they need, because they're willing to promise in writing that they want to -- they won't develop nuclear weapons if we'll do all that for them. well, that didn't work out so well. ople advising this president and we hear madeline albright thinks that's a good deal. and then if there was any doubt in any republican's mind, i don't think there is, but if there is any doubt in any republican's mind at just how horrendous this deal is, that had to be completely dispeled tonight when we heard from our friend on the democratic side that hank paulson, the former secretary of the treasury,
thinks this is the thing to do. the guy that gave us tarp. the guy that said, when we asked, withle, if you don't know how much -- well, if you don't know how much mortgage-back thed securities are worth, how do you know you need $700 billion? and in our conference call with other republicans, the answer to that question was, and i quote, well, we just needed a really big number. that's the guy that we're told tonight is assuring us that this deal with iran is the way to go. on august 6, 2015, white house press secretary john ernest and a white house press briefing stated, quote, we don't need congress to approve this iran nuclear deal. july 28, 2015, secretary kerry at a hearing before the house committee on foreign affairs
stated, the reason why the iran nuclear agreement is not considered a treaty is because it's become physically impossible to pass a treaty through the united states senate anymore, it's become impossible to schedule, it's become impossible to pass. but two days after secretary kerry testified to that, that that was the reason he didn't ing this treaty as a treaty, well, the united states formally ratified the amendment to the convention on the physical protection of nuclear material when the department of state's ambassador to the international atomic energy agency delivered the united states instruments of ratification to the iaea. whoops. turns out secretary kerry's testimony was not true. and i don't think he lied. i just think he was that ignorant. on june 4, 2015, less than two
months before secretary kerry testified, it had become it willy -- physically impossible for them to ratify treaty he said, the department of state is, and i quote, preparing the instruments of ratification of several important treaties, unquote, and that he, quote, wants to personally thank the u.s. congress for their efforts on the implementation -- implementing legislation for the nuclear securities treats -- treaties. well, i don't think he was lying or ignorant, i just think he forgot that he had just thanked us for passing these treaties or at least the senate for ratifying these treaties. he forgot that he had just done that when he said, it's physically impossible to ratify a treaty anymore. may 7, 2015, the senate held a vote on the iran nuclear agreement review act, 2015, commonly referred to as the
corker-carden bill, in which every senator voted on that bill with the understanding that the iran nuclear agreement was an executive agreement, not a treaty, and the united states sanctions on iran's ballistic missile program would remain in place. the corker-carden bill actually states, it is the sense of congress that united nations sanctions on iran for -- united states sanctions on iran for ballistic missiles will remain in place, that includes the united states. the corker-carden bill was intended as a review of the application of statutory sanctions against only iran's nuclear program. corker-carden bill described or prescribes a process for congressional review only of, and i'm quoting, agreements with iran related to the nuclear program of iran. unquote. under subsection b and c of section 135 of the atomic
energy act of 1954, as added by the corker-carden bill, lawmakers may resolve to approve, disapprove or take no action on nuclear agreements with iran. under section 135-d of the atomic energy act of 1954, as added by the corker-carden bill, it calls for, quote, congressional oversight of iranian compliance with nuclear agreements. and it's pretty easy to recall, for those of us with a half decent memory, that actually under the bill, athletey being proposed by this administration -- the treaty being proposed by this administration, the iran treaty actually doesn't allow congress oversight. not only does it not allow congress oversight, it says the i.e.'s going to have oversight, not congress, and we don't even know the arrangement that's
been negotiated for is being negotiated between the iaea and iran but we do know this. despite my friends across the aisle saying in debate today, and i was amazed that this statement would be made, but if iran cheats, we will know it. that was a quote from one of my friends across if iran cheats, we won't know it. won't even know if the iaea has a decent agreement, but we know this, iran will not allow the inspectors to go to the military sites. they made that clear in every communication they have had since this treaty came forward. nd then we find out actually
iran has said we are going to provide samples to you. if iran cheats, we'll know it, what that means is, that when iran cheats, they are going to bring samples that they won't let the iaee inspects and here are the samples because our democratic friends in congress knew if we cheated, we'll let you know we are cheating. seriously? is that how naive this government has gotten? we were told in debate that it would have been a mistake to demand the release of u.s. hostages. oh, yeah, that would have been a mistake, that before we enter any negotiations, they have to show good faith by releasing the hostages so we know that they are a country with whom we can
deal. of course that was the right thing to do. 100 to $150 billion going to iran under this deal is more money than we have given or used to help israel with since israel came into being again in the late 1940's. and yet, we are going to give it not to our close ally israel but they ir worst enemy and plotted to throw israel, this week they said they are plotting to overthrow israel and coming for the united states. and i have heard people, mr. speaker, i believe wrongly compare chamberlain to the current situation that the president and secretary kerry
have proposed. but i would submit that that is for ssly unfair comparison chamberlain, because at the time chamberlain had that paper that he got hitler to sign that caused him to say this is peace for our time, he said peace for our time, at the time chamberlain did that, hitler had not violated every international agreement he had entered. he hadn't done that. iran has. at the time that chamberlain said this is peace for our time, hitler had not been saying death to england. death to france. death to the countries. he had not been saying that. iranian leaders have been,
including the eye tolla. at the time -- ayatolla. at the time that chamberlain said peace for our time, hitler had not publicly stated that he was plotting the overthrow of any of the countries in the area. iran has. they are plotting the overthrow of israel and to take out the united states. our friend tom cole said in the rules committee this week said that this agreement will be an arms race and he is exactly right. and that was confirmed as i was over that week. the saudis are working a deal to buy nukes. iran is going to have them under this iranian treaty if we don't
stop the treaty. you stop the treaty not getting to 2/3. that means it's not binding against the united states. other countries in the area, ordan, egypt, even lip yeah, lebanon, they are go to go have to have nukes if they are going to survive the area. it's going to create the proliferation of nuclear weapons. and as someone said mutually assured destruction with russia was a deterrent. but with iran, it's an incentive. this is such a dangerous time. but the iranian treaty amends the nuclear proliferation treaty in several places.
you can't amend a treaty unless you are amending it with another treaty. this is a treaty, the snt needs to step up and say, this is a treaty and say this is far more important a situation where we suspend the cloture rule so that e do not allow a small segment of radicals supporting iran to keep us from voting on the most important bill of our time. and then vote, and when you don't get 2/3, it's not ratified. what the house is doing this week is actually not a bad strategy for the house because as a treaty, we don't get a vote. but if we stand by and let the president treat it as if it's been ratified, then israel will have to defend itself and under
the iranian treaty, we'll have to defend iran and not israel and the unthinkable will happen and that is the united states and iran will be on the same side against israel. we've got to stop that. and we have to stop that. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would be happy to entertain a motion. mr. gohmert: i ask that we now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted,
>> the one thing that may be just as interesting. there are a number of democrats looking to put political distance between themselves and the president. about nextre talking steps, other legislation, even though they sustained a deal. they want more tough measures. mitch mcconnell has said that you had a chance to say what you wanted about a ron, so if you're going to come up with new -- about iran, so if you're going to, with new proposals, you better have majority so that we can prove we can override a presidential veto. they'ret to be sure if
going to do more just laois and they can override a presidential veto. to be sure that if they're going to do more legislation, they can override a presidential veto. what has been the reaction from president obama? he claimed victory out of it and claimed a mandate for his position, which is to lift the sanctions. his argument is that it was a choice between this international deal because of the stance of our international partners, otherwise he would have no choice but to conduct military strikes. he said because they did filibuster, that was a victory. he claimed it was a victory for national security. , they beganhe house debate on three measures. voted on one already.
where do things stand there? >> if things weren't already hadusing enough, the house been planning to do the same thing in the senate, holding votes on a resolution, disapproving the iran deal. --of today, all those plans they have voted on a resolution that declares the 60 day clause to look over this deal has not started. because there are side agreements between iran and the iaea that aren't public and have not been submitted, that means the 60 day review. has not started. it was a straight partyline vote today where the republicans and said that is true.
tomorrow, they will be voting on a resolution of approval. it is the opposite of the vote the senate took. approval resolution of which republican leaders intended to defeat. aey will also be voting on resolution or statement that would say the president should not lift sanctions until january, giving enough time for these other questions on whether the clock has started taking or not. those,ct the first of the resolution, that has already passed. tellingt the resolution the president not to lift sanctions until january to pass. we expect a revolution that resolution that will approve of the deal. -- that they disapprove of the deal. they will do a resolution of
approval that they wanted to fail, rather than succeed. >> what happens if nothing makes its way to the president from congress? >> the house is arguing the clock has not started ticking. that is a bit of a legal problem for the president, and may open up for a lawsuit if somebody can find standing to sue over it. the president believes that as of september 17, he has the authority to lift the sanctions. the senate has agreed with that essentially. as of next week, if congress takes no action under the law that congress wrote in the president signed earlier this year, the nuclear review act, the president will have the authority to lift sanctions and carry out the deal with no action from congress. thank you for joining us. >> my pleasure. >> just a recap of what we saw
in the house and senate tonight. we are taking your calls. it is 10:00 on the east coast, 7:00 on the west coast. as we take a look at some of the action that happened today on capitol hill on the iran nuclear agreement, a lot of action. the senate deciding it would block the resolution of agreement, on the 58-42, but it needed 60 votes to pass, two votes short. mitch mcconnell said he may bring that to the floor again next week. president obama responding after that senate vote with a statement saying, i am heartened that so many senators justice deal on the merits and am gratified by the strong support of lawmakers and citizens alike.
today, the house split their legislation into a number of bills, three bills working on tomorrow as well, but one vote tonight. that vote stating that the 60 days of congressional review, the time that congress should have to review the agreement has not yet started because they say they have not gotten the entire deal from the president. a number of the no called -- so-called side deals are still not clear for congress. that those deals were negotiated between the iaea and iran. they voted on that and pass the nondisclosure of the side deals legislation earlier today. they started debate on the second bill. approval,e house different from the senate disapproval that failed to pass earlier. they will be voting on that approval tomorrow. tomorrow, a measure that seeks fromrip the u.s. president
lifting sanctions until january 21, 2017, that is the day after president obama would leave office. the house just gaveled out a few minutes ago and we will be hearing from them again. tomorrow gavel back in morning at 9:00 a.m. eastern time. we heard from debbie wasserman schultz. she talks about her support of the agreement and why she was supporting it. also, the chair of the senate financial services committee talked about why this is a bad deal for the united states. we will take a listen to what they had to say and go to your phone calls. the rise in support of motion to approve this agreement. after a thorough review, i believe it is in the best national security interests of the 90 states and our allies for congress to support the plan. i have been a public official for 23 years. this is the most consequential vote i have taken, and the most
difficult decision i have ever faced. spent the review. raising concerns with the administration and speaking with independent sources, including nuclear nonproliferation experts. andld a series of meetings spoke with constituents who hold different positions. my goal was to determine whether the joint conference of plan of action will prevent iran from achieving their nuclear weapons goal. this agreement is clearly not perfect. it is one tool that we have to combat iran stick your ambitions. ultimately, my support is based on substance. my jewish identity weighed heavily in this process. as we listen to iran's leaders call for the destruction of jewish people, history offers us a reminder of what happens when we do not listen. iran is a leading state sponsor
of terrorism. weapon, itnew care is far more dangerous. -- but with a nuclear weapon, it is far more dangerous. i have personally spoken with the president and my colleagues about steps we must and will take to continue strengthening israel and our other allies intelligence capabilities. we must press for a better deal, but after investigating, i'm looking at no evidence that one is likely or even possible. i heard directly from our allies top the formats and analysts from across the political spectrum that the regime we have in place will erode if not completely fall apart. moreover, our partners were not come back to the negotiating table and neither will iran. this deal has to produced any evidence to the contrary. i cannot comprehend why we would walk away from these safeguards.
safeguards, like 24/7, 365 access, and monitoring breezy declared nuclear sites. eliminating 98% of their stockpile. and monitoring every stage of nuclear -- even if they cheat, we will know more, allowing us to eliminate it. as a jewish mother and a member of congress, nothing is more important to me than ensuring the safety and security of the united states and israel. that supporting this agreement is the best opportunity we have to do that. mr. speaker, we have an expression in judaism, may the united states go from strength to strength and as we say in synagogue, -- thank you. >> the gentlelady yields. the chair recognizes mr. royce. minutes.d three
>> chair recognizes the gentleman from texas for three minutes. the chairman for yielding. i rise in strong opposition to the nuclear deal with iran. the president says it is a good deal. he is right. it is a very good deal for iran. it is a very bad deal for america. rush to build a legacy, the president has given up far too much for far too little. he has done this at the expense of our security as well as the security of our friend israel and other u.s. allies. mr. speaker, this is a deadly serious matter. the first thing the president does in his agreement is to give them start up capital, $120 billion abroad now patriot it -- repatriated back to iran's bank.
regime whoseto a supreme leader calls for the annihilation of israel. a regime that still chance, death to america. a regime that has put bounties on the head of american soldiers and has the blood of american citizens on its hands. the regime whose sponsorship of hezbollah has left our closest ally in the region with 80,000 rocket trained on it, a regime that simple he represents the world's largest and most dangerous state sponsor of terrorism. would have usa believe that waiving sanctions against his regime would make the world safer. this is the same president that dismissed isis, and we see with that has gotten us. and ministration whose assessment of national security threats is credible.
stakes involved with a nuclear iran leave zero room for error. whoruth, i fear it is we sent the jv team to negotiate with iran. they were out played out maneuvered, and outwitted. the result is the dangerous agreement we have before us today. it is such a flawed agreement that the president yet again tells congress that we have to pass something to actually find out what is in it. in other words, the president has failed to provide the secret side agreements. president obama once told us we cannot allow iran to get a iran's weapons, but nuclear program will not be dismantled under his deal, only slowed, and that's if the iranians don't cheat. the president's team has failed any time anywhere inspection, thus impossible to ensure iranians are not cheating. don't worry, mr. speaker.
we are told the iranians will turn themselves in that they cheat. really? the president's agreement rewards iran's terrorist sponsoring regime with billions of dollars in relief without any guarantee of compliance. record, mr.k at the speaker, i don't trust this administration. i don't trust the iranians. why wouldn't we trust the two together. i urge all of my colleagues to reject this flawed, dangerous agreement. some of the comments from the floor earlier today. we are taking your phone calls. a look at the capitol, where the house gavel out after working today on legislation dealing with iran.
our first caller on the line is roger in virginia. democrats line. >> i was wanting to comment on this deal tonight. paragraph that iran will never be allowed to get a nuclear weapon. i don't know what congress doesn't understand. congress has it done nothing to help this country. congress should be put in jail. they are an enemy of this country. people just don't understand how bad it is. they fight this president on everything. he is the leader of this country. , allonstitution says enemies foreign and domestic, well we have domestic terrorists in our midst, congress. try to people should figure out how we can help put
congress in jail. they are definitely an enemy of this country. if people just look back and realize that they have divided our country. it is so bad it is now in our churches. you watch the christian channels, that is all you here. this president has got to go. why doesn't congress impeach him if he is such a bad president? do something for this country. how about creating jobs? we could use a few of those out here. i'm a real democrat. republicans call in, they grab all free lines. hardly ever get a true democrat on this channel. those calls.ate we will look out for the wrong colors on the lines.
one of those sponsored would actually block u.s. presidents of sanctionsing and tell president obama leaves office. one of the points echoed by our first color. let's go on to our line for independence. casey in california. comment onanted to the corker agreement the president signed. mustated that congress approve the deal, including side agreements. obama has not been able to show covers the side agreements. is funny thing about that that the supporters of the deal talk about these intrusive inspections they will do. thatmy understanding is the inspection procedures are
only included in the agreement between the iaea and iran. the united states does not have access to it. it doesn't make any sense to me. why would obama want to do this? you give a country so much money up front, and it does not seem like the negotiation makes any sense? side?on our side or iran >> we will hear what some lawmakers have had to say. we will play a portion as soon as we wrap up these of telephone calls. one of the votes that did pass in the house earlier is that it has not saying started its 60 day clock because it has not heard about the entirety of the deal from the president. here is a call from matthew in georgia. republican. go-ahead. i'm 54 years old, disabled
veteran, served in desert storm and is at shield, fall for her country, fought for israel. i am ashamed of our president. deal that would fight against israel if they send any kind of protection to blow up these nuclear things that were not allowed to look at, not allowed to check them out. i believe they already have nuclear weapons and we don't even know it. this deal is such a bad deal for our country and our grandchildren that once this 15 years is up, if it works like the president said, he still has a way for us to be bombed and killed, and it is a terrible thing. the bible says that a man who rejects a god over and over is turned over to a reprobate mind. i believe our president and a
lot of people in our congress have reprobate minds and don't understand what they are doing right now to our children and our country. whether a democrat or republican, this is a thing peopleur country and dependent on the united states as a great leader. they have seen as for way down below in the last eight years of his presidency. i'm ashamed of our country and the leadership we have right now. i hope that this deal does not go through. >> you could be right. let's take a look at an article from the washington post talking about some of the next steps we might see from lawmakers. house conservatives may end up in court to kill the iran deal. may have alicans last-minute tactical switch.
they have committed to settling the fight in the courts or admitting defeat. the house plans to vote tomorrow of approvalion where a yes vote means a guest to the deal, instead of a resolution of disapproval. john boehner promising today that house republicans will use slow, and to stop, delay this agreement from being fully implemented up to and including suing president obama to keep him from enforcing the agreement. that is very possible, john boehner said. taking your phone calls. democrat. >> yes, i am a lifelong democrat. .'m a vietnam veteran i get sick and tired of these republicans that want to take us to war, fight everybody in the world, and do nothing else.
they doerans come home, nothing for us. they holler about this deal is bad for israel because iran will have a nuclear weapon. 100 20 -- 120r nuclear weapons in israel right now. iran off theblow map. , they willisrael shoot you back with a bazooka. there is no problem with israel being able to look out for themselves. , when they clowns let george bush and that dumb dick cheney lead us into iraq and took out hussein who was keeping iran under control, all these folks are going to be looking at us when we walk through their.
where was all of these republicans then. he was a bad president. ever since obama has been in on -- in office, the republicans have factum. he has brought this country back from financial destruction. >> where did you serve? >> i served in vietnam. >> thank you for your call, william. brenda from florida. on the line for democrats. my opinion is mr. president, we did not like to king. we elected you president of the united states. i asked that you do not throw our nation under the bus. as far as mr. kerry, the
president might as well have sent bozo the clown. he could've done a better job. no, no, no, to the randy l. >> all right, thanks for your call. -- i say no, no, no to the iran deal. in anticipation of the end of sanctions, iran gets its tankers moving. another one says, does it matter if voters hate the iran deal. politico, it was supposed to be the easy part of september. instead, the gop's plans have again morphed into a mess. taking your phone calls for the next five minutes or so. chris is on the line. eugene, oregon, independence and others. things, wouldn't it be neat if we could actually have some coverage.
here's one. what i'm concerned about is national politics, national journalism. would you agree to that? >> for you talking about the iran deal specifically? >> i can do that as well. here's a back story. oregon, i i moved to ran across these two people, beautiful people. they could ski like wizards. going to get are back on topic here. >> thanks for having me on. >> you bet. >> most house republicans seem to forget that our policy of interventionism in general is what got us in this position in the first place. we need to look back at our failed history of trying to get
politics.n iranian get out and let them run their own country. >> thanks for the call. sarah is in miami. you have the floor. >> hello. that irant to say cannot be trusted. they have never kept to their word for any deal in history. we are giving them everything that they want, and we are not getting what we need. they already have these weapons. even with the checks and everything, they still have the , and theyomb israel
will have undeclared plans also where they will still be building, especially with all the money from sanctions being lifted, and they will bomb america. havethough israel may nuclear weapons also, but why should we wait until they attack? >> thanks. sorry to cut you off. thanks for the point. about obama,lking democrats, pave the way for iran nuclear deal, handing him a welcome foreign-policy victory. the washington times, former cia director has some suggested changes for the iran nuclear deal. one more here. the mostacts on one of consequential foreign-policy debates.
tweeting, senator majority leader took steps to set up another vote. we could see that vote next week. --'s get to out in florida al in florida. >> the military industrial complex wants us to bomb iran. i'm am of a belief that we will -- that arm off ball. is a major accomplishment, getting 5000 centrifuges mothballed. we are getting something in return. they now have to take that uranium, the couple of tons of enriched uranium and diluted. what people don't realize is dick cheney made $45 million
,rom 2000-2009 with halliburton and this is all about making for theey military-industrial complex. that is the reason why those 47 senators wrote that letter to the iranian leaders trying to sabotage the deal in the first place. there yelling and screaming saying, we don't want don't get those centrifuges, they will have the theyty to convert what have into a nuclear weapon and just 3-4 months. so, we put a stop to that temporarily by having those centrifuges mothballed. thanks for the call. one more call. the republicans line. , from georgia.
down the road we did a few years ago when we were supposed to vote on something that we would read later, only to find out that what was in the package that came back to bite many americans and buy them hard. people ask any number of about obama care. they will tell you that they don't know enough about it, and what they do know is that it has been so expensive for them, more so than they would have believed. if we are going to go down the road with such a thing as this iran deal and not read it and have to worry about it down the road that we made a great mistake, and these kinds of mistakes are mistakes that we cannot afford to make at any price, israel's price, or at our price. i am old enough to remember the day when ronald reagan stood on the capitol steps being sworn in and iran have been told, don't
wait until i'm sworn in to release those hostages. they did at the last minute, because they knew there was a man coming into the office that would do what he said he was going to do. get on our's congressmen and senators and tell them not to make the deal. read this deal, and we know we won't want it, therefore we won't have to worry with it later. iran doesn't play fair. they never have and never will. they are never going to. they have one objective, and that is their self. thanks for the call. to recap some of what the senate did today, it blocked its resolution of disapproval by two votes, not being able to reach the 60 vote threshold. the iran deal not moving for less mitch mcconnell brings it up next week. ,he house passing earlier today stating the 60 day review.
has not started yet. they don't have all the information about the deal. at house will be coming in 9:00 a.m. eastern time to work on two more iran related bills. we will take you there live on c-span. let's look back at some of these side deals and what lawmakers had to say about that earlier on capitol hill. >> we always five international inspection -- thought international inspections were going to be done by international inspectors.
i think one thing all members can agree on is that sound verification must be the bedrock of any viable agreement. the problem is key aspects of this verification agreement have not been presented to congress to review. indeed, there are two separate arrangements agreed to between iran and an arm of the u.n., the international atomic agency. one is regarding the regime's past bomb work, of which there are a thousand pages of evidence that the iaea tell us about.
the other involves access to the iranian military base, where evidence shows that testing took place. in order to fully assess the agreement, members of congress should have access to these documents. this is especially important since around -- iran will almost certainly treat these arrangements as setting a standard for future iaea requests to add to any especiallysites, military sites. physical access by the iaea to parchin is critical to understanding iran's past bomb work. this is where iran constructed a large explosives containment vessel, to quote the iaea. and why did they do it? to conduct experiments related to the development say the international inspectors, of
nuclear weapons. iran has blocked their access, the international inspectors' access, to parchin for years, and in the meantime we are told by those inspectors that they watch on spy satellite as iran bulldozes and paves over the site. and then paves over the site again. if the international inspectors cannot attain a clear understanding of the experimentation that took place, then the united states will have great difficulty figuring out how long it would take iran to rush towards a nuclear weapon. in recent congressional testimony, administration officials expressed confidence in their access to suspicious sites that the agreement provides the iaea. yet these separate angments -- arrangements have the potential to seriously weaken our ability to verify the agreement as a whole if it is true that iran
is going to do self-inspections here which is what iran asserts. mr. speaker, the history of iranian negotiating behavior as we know is to pocket past concessions and then what do they do? they push for more and more and more. the separate arrangement agreed to between the iaea eniran regarding inspection of the facilities at parchin will almost certainly be regarded by that government in iran has a precedent for their iaea access to future suspicious sites in iran. in other words, you don't get access to this site, you're not going to get access to other military sites where there's evidence that the same type of thing has occurred. so if iran won't let international inspectors do the international inspecting today, what makes us think that the iranians will allow intrusive terms to these agreements in the future after sanctions have
been lifted when we find evidence of the next site? i have little doubt that the side deals of today will become central to the agreement's verification provisions tomorrow. this makes it imperative that these agreements are made available to congress. mr. speaker, 350 members, house -- of this house, democrats and republicans, think we have majority of the democrats, we had, i think, every republican right to secretary kerry. last fall iran's willingness to resolve concerns over its bomb work, as we said in that letter, is a fundamental test of iran's intention to uphold a comprehensive agreement. that's why we all wrote that letter together. in order to make that point. the administration once took the same position we are taking right now on the house floor as
well, but it gave that position away in negotiations. it gave away that position. reviewing these site agreements is critical to understanding whether iran intends to pass that test. we need access to those agreements. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california, mr. royce, reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. mr. schiff: thank you, mr. speaker. i claim the time in opposition and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. schiff: after several years of difficult negotiations with a dangerous and malevolent regime, the administration and representatives of the other p5+1 nations reached an agreement with iran over its nuclear program. the primary objective of the united states in the negotiations was to prevent iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon. given the unthinkable consequences of iran, the world's foremost sponsor of terrorism obtaining the bomb, this has been an overriding
national security imperative of the united states for decades. as an american and as a jew who is deeply concerned about the security of israel, it is also intensely personal. i believe our vital interests have been advanced under the agreement since it would be extremely difficult for iran to amass enough figuresable material to make a nuclear weapon without giving the united states ample notice and time to stop it. we will still need to guard against any iranian effort to obtain nuclear material or technology from proliferators abroad, a reality even if iran had given up all enrichment, but the agreement likely gives the world at least a decade and a half without the prospect of an iranian nuclear weapon and without going to war to make that so. that is a major achievement. the united states realized this objective by securing a number of important provisions in the agreement, including the power
to snap back sanctions in whole or in part and not subject to a veto in the united nations. the united states and its allies also procured extensive intrusive inspections regime that lasts for 25 years or more. by applying to the whole chain of the enrichment process from the ground to the centrifuge, it realistically precludes iran from developing a hidden and parallel enrichment process. with respect to those inspections i think it's very important to clarify something which i off hear the opponents obscure and that is there are inspection was respect to iran's prior military work, inspections of known nuclear sites, and inspections of other sites which we may suspect iran may conduct work in the future. the mechanisms with respect to each are different. with respect to the no nuclear sites, there are 24-7 eyes on iran's enrichment activities that will be the most extensive
and intrusive inspections any nation has seen of its nuclear program. with respect to its potential sites, that is sites we don't know where we suspect in the future they may do work, we'll have a mechanism to obtain inspections in a timely way. and certainly in a timely enough way that if they were to ever utilize radioactive material, they would be detected. and finally, we have the inspections into their prior military work, and will i say this with respect to the prior military work, those of us that have reviewed the intelligence know that we have an extensive bank of information about what iran had been doing in the past. . to the degree we have a baseline of what iran's work has been, we have a baseline and i think that's a pivotal consideration going forward. as recently as yesterday, the director of national intelligence stated that he has great confidence that we can determine if iran fails to comply with the agreement. for me it is the size and
sophistication of iran's nuclear enrichment capability ability after 15 years that is the key challenge. at that point it is the work necessary to produce the mechanism for the bomb that becomes the real obstacle to a breakout and that work is the most challenging to detect. nevertheless, i have searched for a better, credible alternative and concluded that there is none. when it comes to predicting the future, we are all looking through the glass darkly, but if congress rejects a deal agreed to by the administration and most of the world, the sanctions regime will, if not collapse, almost certainly erode. this does not mean that iran necessarily dashes madly for a bomb, but it will almost certainly move forward with its enrichment program, unconstrained by inspections, limits on research and development of new centrifuges or other protections in the deal. in short, iran will have many of the advantages of the deal
in access to money and trade with none of its disadvantages. instead of rejecting the deal, therefore, congress should focus on making it stronger. first, we should make it clear that if iran cheats, the repercussions will be severe. second, we should continue to strengthen our intelligence capabilities to detect any form of iranian noncompliance. third, we should establish the expectation that while iran will be permitted to have an enrichment capability for civilian use, it will never, never be permitted to produce highly enriched uranium, and if it attempts to do so, it will be stopped with force. fourth, we will share with israel all the technologies necessary to maintain its regional military superiority and if necessary to destroy iran's nuclear facilities no matter how deep the bunker. and finally, we're prepared to work with israel and our gulf allies to make sure that every action iran takes to use its
new-found wealth for destructive activities in the region will prompt and opposite reaction and -- equal and opposite reaction and will combat their influence. the iranian people will one day throw off the shackles of their oppressive regime, and i hope that this deal will empower those who wish to reform iranian governance and behavior. the 15 years or more this agreement provides will give us the time to test that proposition. then, as now, if iran is determined to develop the bomb, there is only one way to stop it and that is by the use of force. but the american people and others around the world will recognize that we did everything possible to avoid war. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. royce. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. nunes, chairman of the permanent select committee on intelligence.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california, mr. nunes, is recognized for three minutes. mr. nunes: thank you for yielding. mr. speaker, although the obama administration has pitched the iran nuclear accord to prevent the ayatollahs from making nuclear weapons, it lifts their activities after 10 to 15 years. many of my fellow members wonder how the administration can be so naive as to pave the way for an iranian bomb in the course of trying to prevent an iranian bomb. well, the answer is clear to me. the president is gambling. he's betting on the very act of engaging with iran will moderate the regime's behavior. so that in a decade or so from now we won't have to worry about it anymore. he has called his engagement with iran a cat -- calculated risk. indeed it is a risk. as i said, the president is placing a bet, but why would anyone bet on the moderation of the iranian regime? it has not changed one iota
since the ayatollah seized power since 1979. iran is the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism. it is also responsible for the deaths of thousands of u.s. soldiers in iraq. obama has spoken of the ayatollah khomeini as possibly seeking to rejoin the community of nations this is a thin read to justify giving iran a path to a bomb in the near future. with the ritual death to america chants. i don't know how the iranians can make it any more clorer that they don't want to re-- clearer that they don't want to rejoin the community of nations. they want to blow up the community of nations. soon after the iranian agreement was signed, khomeini himself tweeted a silhouette image of president obama holding a gun to his head. i just don't understand what is more clear that this regime could do to make its intentions clearer to the american people. but our president sees things
differently, as he told "the new york times," if the nuclear agreement is signed, quote, who knows, iran may change. well, consider this. if you're rolling the dice at a casino, who knows, you may roll a seven. if you're at the roulette wheel, who knows, it may land on your number. but when you're gambling one thing is for sure in the long run, the casino -- one thing is for sure, in the long run, the casino wins. mr. speaker, unfortunately this is not a casino nor is it about a gambler losing money. this is about gambling on human lives. the u.s. lives and our western allies. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield five minutes to the gentlelady from new york, mrs. lowey, the ranking member of the appropriations committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is
recognized for five minutes. mrs. lowey: thank you, mr. speaker. reasonable people disagree about the merits and shortcomings of the joint comprehensive plan of action. in the strongest democracy in the world, we have the sacred duty to uphold the high standard of debate and govern responsibly. that's why i'm profoundly disappointed by personal attacks, character assassinations on both sides of this debate, and i am outraged by the republicans' attempt to score political points on this critical issue of national and global security. the threat to pursue wasteful litigation and to tie the hands of our president until the end of his term are particularly outrageous when the senate has indicated it will not even consider these measures. i strongly oppose the blatantly irresponsible partisan political measures before the house this week. as ranking democratic member of
the house appropriations committee and the subcommittee on foreign operations, i have participated in dozens of classified and unclassified iran briefings with the obama administration, including members of our negotiating team and colleagues in congress during the last two years. i have thoroughly evaluated the joint comprehensive plan of action released in july, met with foreign leaders, nuclear experts and heard from thousandses of thoughtful and passionate -- thousandses of thoughtful and passionate people. i will vote against approval of the agreement. sufficient safeguards simply are not in place to address the risks associated with this agreement, and it will not dismantle iran's nuclear infrastructure. first, in approximate 15 years, iran will become an internationally nuclear threshold state capable of producing highly enriched uranium to develop a nuclear
weapon. second, releaving u.n. sanctions on conventional arms and ballistic missiles and releasing billions of dollars to the iranian regime will lead to a dangerous regional weapons race and enable iran to bolster hamas ding of hezbollah, and assad. third, the deal does not require them to disclose their previous work before sanctions relief is provided. inspectors will not have anytime anywhere access to the most suspicious facilities, particularly the parchin military complex, with a process that lacks transparency and could delay inspectors' access for up to 24 days. finally, there are no clear accountability measures regarding punishment from minor violations of the agreement. in recent weeks, the
administration has responded to some of my concerns by committing to additional security assistance to israel and our gulf partners and to improving international cooperation on countering iran's nonnuclear destabilizing activities. i will work in congress and with the administration to expeditiously implement these commitments to enhance, not just maintain, nonnuclear-related sanctions to establish stronger mechanisms to deter iran and to ensure iran never develops a nuclear weapon. one of my highest priorities will continue to be the protection of israel's qualitative military edge so that our closest ally in the region can defend itself against all threats from iran or its proxies. in the same week, my colleagues, that congress holds this important vote, iran's
supreme leader vowed again to annihilate the jewish state of israel and to vilify the great satan that he calls the united states of america. it is my sincere hope that we can work together in a bipartisan way moving forward. the security of the united states of america and our allies depends on it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. royce. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, who chairs the foreign affairs subcommittee on the middle east and north africa and was the author of some of the iran sanctions laws that are enforced today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for two minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank my esteemed chairman for his leadership on this critical issue and i also want to congratulate mr. pompeo, whose resolution we are discussing. mr. speaker, this deal will
allow iran to become nuclear capable in just a short order. it will allow iran to grow and expand its military. it will allow iran to continue with its support for terror. these facts are indisputable. what is also indisputable is that the regime in tehran detest the united states, the west and the democratic jewish state of israel, our steadfast partner. the supreme leader of iran constantly insites chants death to america and death to america. are we not listening? and through its proxies, hezbollah and hamas, iran seeks to make this threat into a reality. and earlier this week, the supreme leader threatened that israel will no longer exist in just 25 years. and because of this agreement, mr. speaker, the regime will now have the weapons, it will now have the capabilities to pose an even greater threat to
us, to israel and to our interests in the region, giving a regime that openly calls for and works toward our destruction and the destruction of israel is insane. we are providing iran a path to nuclear weapons and increased conventional weapons capability, and this just isn't bad policy. it is dangerous. it is naive to think that this nuclear deal with iran won't make us and the world less safe, less secure and less peaceful. therefore, mr. speaker, we must reject it. i thank my chairman, mr. royce, and mr. pompeo for this resolution and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, the distinguished assistant democratic leader, mr. clyburn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. clyburn: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time. i rise today in strong support of the joint comprehensive plan of action negotiated between the united states, the permanent five members of the united nations security council plus germany. the european union and iran. i support this deal because it is the best available option to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, an outcome that all of us agree must be prevented. the opponents of this agreement say that iran supports terrorism. i don't disagree with that. this deal, however, is about only one issue, the issue that the entire world agrees is by far the most pressing -- preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon. it is precisely because iran is so nefarious that this deal is o important.
dangers remain. iran will be far more dangerous if they acquired a nuclear weapon. this deal is the best way to prevent that unacceptable outcome. the opponents of this agreement say that we can't trust the iranians to abide by the agreements' strict restrictions on their nuclear program. that may be true, and i wouldn't be supporting the agreement if it required us to trust the iranians, but it doesn't. this deal is built around the strictest verifications ever devised. -- we will s to likely catch them using the verification procedures under this deal than we would be without it. . were this deal in place if we do cash iran dashing toward a nuclear weapon, all options
will be on the table to stop them. but military force must always be a last resort. i have not heard any of the opponents of this agreement present any realistic diplomatic alternative that would be anywhere near as likely to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon. if we reject this deal, military action will become more likely. whenever we send americans into harm's way, we must be able to look them and their families in the eye and honestly tell them that we have exhausted every other option. this deal is a diplomatic option we must exhaust. this deal's opponents resent -- present no other. israeli prime minister rabin said, and i quote, you don't
make peace with friends. you make it with unsavory enemies. end of quote. we are now faced with three choices. this deal drastically increase likelihood of military confrontation, or a nuclear iran. i support this deal and ask my colleagues to join me in doing so. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. royce. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on africa, global health, global human rights, and international organizations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: mr. speaker, it was previously unacceptable an iranian nuclear state is now inevitable under the terms and conditions under the joint comprehensive plan of action. it is riddled with serious flaws, gaps, and huge concessions to iran. taken as a whole it poses a threat to israel and other
friends in the region and is a significant risk to the united states. not only is iran now permitted to continue enriching uranium, a previous nonnegotiable red line with no enrichment whatsoever, but under this agreement iran will be able to assemble an industrial-scale nuclear program once the agreement begins to sunset in as little as a decade. make no mistake about it, iran's decade long hatred of israel shows no sign of abating any time soon. yesterday the times of israel reported that iran's supreme leader has said to israel, you will not see the next 25 years. adding that the jewish state will be hounded until it's destroyed. mr. speaker, inspections are anything but any time or anywhere the obama administration's previous pledge to the nation and the world. we have learned that the iaea has entered into a secret agreement that precludes unfettered robust inspection.
it also violates the corker law we have not gotten that information. mr. speaker, iran is the world's leading supporter of terrorism. disagreement -- this agreement provides tens of billions of dollars for weapons and war making material. the supreme leader also criticized any call to end his ballistic missile program. another 11th hour concession. he called that stupid and idiotic as the supreme leader. and that they should mass-produce such weapons, such means of delivery. countries build icbms, mr. speaker, to deliver nukes. the administration was reluctant. i held two hearings, the chairman held several hearings on the americans being held hostage. they remain in jail, abused, tortured, or missing. why are they not free? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, at
this point i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. visclosky, the ranking member of the appropriation committee's subcommittee on defense. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. visclosky: i thank the gentleman for the time. i rise to express my strong support for the iran nuclear agreement. as the ranking member of the defense subcommittee of the house appropriations committee, i'm acutely aware of the harmful influence iran and his proxies have on the security situation in the greater middle east. however, despite my clear and deep distrust of iran, i firmly support the joint comprehensive plan of action given the improvement it works. this hard fought multilateral agreement will severely limit iran's nuclear am missions, establish a verifiable and robust inspection regime, allow for the timely reinstatement of sanctions for violations of this agreement, and in no way
limit u.s. military options. i can argue that the agreement -- i can't argue that the agreement is perfect and i am frustrated at its limited scope, however in any negotiation, especially one among sovereign nation, each having their own economic and security considerations, some compromise is necessary. critically i believe the agreement reaches an accomplishment and the goal of preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. i concur with the sentiments of my esteemed friend and former senator, richard lugar, who recently croat that congressional rejection of the iran deal would kill the last chance for washington to reach a verifiable iranian commitment not to build a nuclear weapon. and destroy the effective coalition that brought iran to the negotiating table. i believe it is vital for the duration of the agreement that the u.s. leads the
international community to maintain focus on iran's compliance and ensures that iran does not undermine regional stability through other pathways. to accomplish this, we must remain steadfast in our commitments to israel and all our regional partners. i ask all to constructively work to improve the security situation in the middle east rather than using all of their energy to undermine the agreement. we cannot rely on force of arms alone to bring lasting stability to any region of the world. in conclusion, i do hope that the exhaustive multilateral negotiations that led to this agreement will serve as a template for future u.s. and international engagement and other outstanding issues that have led to instability and violence in the region, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield ba